Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wsuprincess
I wouldn't say that either of the books highlighting Robert Langdon is bad in the least. It opened up new ideas. Michael Crichton does the same thing, and I greatly enjoy his books, as well. I don't know...I guess I don't see how it's being criticized so much. You shouldn't read a fiction book, and then argue about the validity of the events in history and whatnot. That's why it's fiction.
|
Agreed on most points. I thought Angels and Demons stank to high heaven. It reminded me of Grisham's
The Chamber. Da Vinci I didn't so much think was
bad from an entertainment standpoint, and I don't regret having read it. I won't be complaining at yon Pearly Gates about the hours I spent reading it or anything. I just think there are better books. I think the majority of the criticism is only tangentially aimed at Brown, or at least the well-thought criticism. Religious fundamentalisists, I'm not talking about your reaction, etc. I think most people are perturbed that so many people
don't treat it like fiction, and the criticism is/should be directed at them. The little statement at the beginning of the book claming something like the standard "The names have been changed to protect the innocent" might be a little misleading, but frankly I'd suggest reading even non-fiction books like their fiction. If someone's claim on knowledge doesn't check out, don't be surprised. All I know about Michael Crighton-related areas is that the swarthy guy from Jurassic Park is an ass whenever I see him interviewed, and the fat guy made me hurt from having to watch him blunder about, even knowing it was a movie.